Amendment to overturn Citizens United

Only would a liberal think free speech is corrupt.

 

answer the question....

guess you think cigarette companies should be able to have cartoons in their ads on tv, during cartoons times on the major networks... or do you support reasonable restrictions on corporations?

 

ok, we are restricted to donating $2500, lets have the same rules for corps

regular people can make youtubes promoting their fav cigarette, should cigarette companies be able to do the same?

corps to me are more like mini-governments... republicans logic is like calling America a person cause it has people in it

.

 

Speaking of news organizations.

 

Once again, what is it about our first amendment. that's so hard to understand. Do yourself a favor, stop hiding behind kids, and answer the question.

 

I stand corrected, it was a vote for a debate. That being said, you don't have to be a jerk about it and call it "mistaken garbage". I was simply asking what people think about a new amendment, since I have tended to hear a much more liberal voice about the dangers of citizens united as opposed to the consequences of corporations not having that right.

 

I am not in favor of either corporations- or unions- being able to spend money to influence elections.

I think that should be restricted to actual persons.

Is this the best amendment? I don't know

I would have prefered something specifically stating. I would have preferred something along the lines that limits spending by individuals directly.

 

Are you aware that cigarette companies gladly went along with a ban on television ads primarily due to the fact that they would no longer have to compete in that market? Cigarette companies agreed not to show advertising on TV, and it made everybody happy, INCLUDING the cig companies, who now don't have to worry about trying to outspend their competitors on television ads. It's basic game theory (essentially a prisoners dilemma), but I will elaborate. Suppose we have just 2 cigarette companies for the sake of argument. If both are competing on television for advertising, then they end up splitting the market and each makes 1 billion dollars. If only one of them advertises on television, that company gets 1.5 billion, and the one that doesn't advertise gets 500 million. If neither advertise, they both get to save money on advertising, thus making their profits 1.25 billion each. Thus, each company is better off if nobody is allowed to advertise on television.

This is slightly off topic, but I wanted to illustrate my point. I want to say that I do believe in SOME restrictions on corporations, and as my OP said, the scope of the bill of rights is open for debate. Originally it wasn't even meant to extend to the states, until the 14th amendment came along. However, as a free market person I also believe that what people spend money on demonstrates people's and corporation's values. Why do corporations spend so much money on congress? Because they value the power that We The People have willingly handed them. It is perfectly rational for corporations to spend money for congress to represent their best interests, but The People also have a duty to check that power, a duty which has not been adequately performed in recent years IMO.

 

Citizens united? Sigh, not this again.
For all I care, campaign finance could be eliminated forever.

Maybe then people will be elected based on their merits, and not their wallets.

 

So you believe in directly infringing on an individuals right to spend money on speech? Should Michael Moore be banned from making movies then? Between Farenheit 911, Sicko, and Bowling for Columbine, Moore spent around $19 million. Should that be legal, after all, these were very politically targeted documentaries.

 

Could you please elaborate on your opinions, rather than giving 2 sentences that simply attack one side and don't provide any actual argument for why this amendment would be good or bad?

 

A red light goes off whenever someone use's the word "right".
Who said it was a "Right", because I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't.

Liberty goes both ways. While you claim liberty is infringed by restricting someone from financing their politician, someone else may claim that corporations are infringing on the people's capability to get proper representation.

 

Yes, they should be allowed to make cigarette cartoons and put them on youtube. And youtube, as a private corporation, has the right to take them down. Just like they do with pornography and other videos that are inappropriate for the site.

 

Anyways, I'm neutral on the argument. I know some politicians only stand a chance through finance, but others use a ridiculous sum from corporations to crush out all the competition. That's neither appealing or democratic. Nor was the joke that was 2012.

 

I agree with you here. There is a difficult line when it comes to liberty. Democrats in the 1930's started defining liberty as "freedom from poverty" and "freedom from sickness". But I like "freedom of choice".

We should provide the people with the things they need to succeed, give them the best advice, but not restrict advertising that may lead them to their OWN personal choices.

 

Have you heard of the Bill of RIGHTS at the end of the constitution? There's this one amendment, oh yea, it's the FIRST one, that says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You may notice that in the middle it says "or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". Now, in the original constitution, this only applied to the federal government, but thanks to the 14th amendment, this now extends to the states. Freedom of speech, as has been shown in MANY court cases, extends much further then simply written or spoken speech. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme court held that it was a violation of the first amendment for any state, or congress, to make a law banning the desecration of the American Flag.

Please explain how a corporation spending money on a politician infringes on a persons right to get proper representation? Any American can vote for ANY candidate that they want during an election, so I have absolutely no idea how corporations promoting a politician infringes on their right to vote, or their right to get "proper representation" (words that have virtually no meaning). That being said, one aspect of campaign finance, and much of political spending in general, is that it should be more transparent and open. Rather than trying to violate people's first amendment rights to free speech, I think that if you want to use your money as a form of speech about a politician, people should know where the money is coming from, and who it is supporting. The right to privacy may be implicit in the bill of rights, but I don't think that should apply to free speech, as speech of any form is meant to be heard, seen or experienced.

 

"Freedom of choice" is impossible to define or allow. The fact is, people DON'T have equal opportunities or choices. To make an attempt to give all people a "freedom of choice" is to either unfairly burden some people (i.e. people who inherently have more choice, such as people born into nice homes, people with more athletic ability, people who are more attractive, or people who are more intelligent), or to unfairly give advantage to other people (i.e. people who inherently have less choices, such as those born in poor homes or with illness). While "Freedom of choice" is a noble pursuit, it is an absolutely impossible goal to achieve.

 

It WAS mistaken garbage. Own your work.

I commented upon your garbage and I had to retract what I wrote thanks to your crap post.

Being materially wrong on the most important aspect of the topic should be of MUCH greater concern that what one crank posts.

 

I am sorry- my last line was a typo- what I meant was I would have preferred something along the lines that limits spending to individuals directly- and eliminate spending by corporations and unions- any non-individuals.

I am not in favor of either corporations- or unions- being able to spend money to influence elections.

 

Well first off, learn to type correctly, I'm assuming you meant "than one crank posts". Secondly, if you read my OP, I said that the senate voted for an amendment, which came from the article I read. I did NOT say that senate PASSED an amendment, see the difference? Probably not, as it doesn't seem like you actually provide any use on this forum other than criticizing other people's work without providing any actual substance that is useful in a political debate. Why don't you try doing some research, and actually learn how to properly discuss, debate, and bring up political issues so that your 3 and 4 line posts won't be garbage.

You retracted 2 sentences that weren't even grammatically correct sentences, it's not like it was an op-ed, and it didn't even make any sense "Total wank. No shot." Please learn proper English before responding to my comments. Thanks =)

 

I believe the same. But it seems the Democrats only want to go after the corporations and not the unions and unions are the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.

Labor Unions: The Biggest Political Donors | National Review ...
www.nationalreview.com/...unions-biggest-political-donors... Cached
Jun 30, 2011 · Labor Unions: The Biggest Political Donors - Google+. September 22 Issue. Subscribe Print. Subscribe Digital. Gift: NR Print. Gift: NR / Digital. NRO ...

 

OOOH, haha that does make a HUGE difference in what you meant, and something I completely agree with (at least for individuals), not so much corporations or unions, just because, again, it is a slippery slope to restricting freedom of the press.

 

And it seems the Republicans only want to go after the corporations, and the corporations are the biggest donors to the Republican Party- and Right wing PACs....

Both Democrats and Republicans eat from the trough of money not coming Unions and Corporations.

 

Won't own your error and you're the grammar police. Buh bye.

 

Shouldn't the collective America have some say on a world topic?

Your perception of corporations would be like saying the opinion or agenda of America regarding international affairs should be dismissed because America isn't a person.

Why shouldn't a corporation have a say into things that impact their business?